Ever served on a jury?

[Seano]

I'm a trial paralegal, I will never get picked unless the attorneys from both sides are complete morons.

BTW: Trade Secret - if you ever get picked for a jury, it's because the attorneys on both sides think you can be easily swayed to their position and favor their side. That's why most jurors (civil ones, at least) are either non-college grads working blue-collar jobs, housewives, and/or retired old farts - I almost never see a professional, educated person (especially if he's a white guy) get picked from a panel to sit on a jury.

That is EXACTLY what bothered me about being called. I got called for a jury for some scrub who sexed up kids. I really don't care for the defense attorney looking at me and thinking "Well, here's a guy who will sympathize with someone who fucks kids."

I told the judge I thought the guy was guilty and they let me go home.

 

[TheBox]

I've served twice.

First time was a civil case. A man crashed his car into a woman's car and she suffered some injuries. She was suing for medical costs and physical therapy, which we found in her favor. She also wanted a lot of money for pain and suffering, which we did not give her, as her injuries weren't all that severe nor did she have any permanent issues. On the whole, I didn't enjoy the process, even though it took only 1 day. Many of the jury members couldn't care less about the case and just wanted to reach a verdict so they could go home. Weak.

Second time, I was on a grand jury for a month. The vast majority of it was just issuing indictments. An ADA would come in and say he wants to charge Joe Blow with drunk driving. Then a cop would take the stand and say he pulled Joe Blow over after seeing erratic driving and that he was over the limit on the breathalizer. We had 14 jury members and I think we needed 9 yes votes for an indictment.

I only recall having one indictment denied. The police's evidence for the crime was very flimsy and their work struck us as lazy (not interviewing obvious people to interview).

There were also a couple instances where someone would come in to give testimony into court record on cases that would later being going to trial.

Even though it was a month long and pretty repetitive, I enjoyed the grand jury experience more. Many of the police officers and ADAs had good "dumb criminal" stories and the members of the jury were more active. We had better discussions and were even allowed to ask questions of the DAs and witnesses.

 

[Revolver]

I make too much money to waste my time on a jury. I never respond to the notices.

 

[Nnedd]

I was on a jury. I was glad to do it, the doctor being sued should never have been sued, I was happy to be there. I mean, we shouldn't have been there, but if it was going to happen, I'm happy to be on the jury to help exonerate her. I was the foreman, it was cool. I got paid while I was gone, it took about a week, I didn't mind.


I saw an expert witness for the plaintiff get his ass handed to him.

He testified, quoting a passage from a Mayo clinic text, that the best course of monitoring MERSA in the spine was to do blood test, and that SED rate testing was inadequate and should not be counted on.

Then the defense attorney got up and had him restate the text and his statement that SED rate testing was inadequate standard of care.

Then the attorney said "I'd like you to read the paragraph before the text you're quoting". That paragraph stated that patients with hardware (bolts, etc) in the spine required special testing, and that normal SED rate testing wasn't adequate. Then the defense attorney said, "Did Mrs. _______ have any hardware in her spine?".

Well, the expert admitted, no she didn't. Then the defense attorney read the paragraph after the text the witness had cited. That said that in all other cases, SED rate testing was the preferred and most accurate way of monitoring MERSA infections in the spine.

Then the defense attorney said some good stuff.

"So, that text you cited doesn't say what you thought it said, does it?".

Well, no, it doesn't, admitted the expert. Then it got even wilder.

"That's probably the first time you've read that in context isn't it?" asked the attorney.

And the witness said, yes it is.



It was awesome. Sitting in this malpractice trial, it was a little Perry Mason, Matlock moment.


I think I've told that story on here before.

 

[Gaeric]

Served as a juror on a murder trial a couple years back. Guy shot an unarmed guy seven times for asking him to move his car because it was blocking the entrance/exit of a club. Life in prison as a result.

We had the 'expert witnesses' as well, one of whom was a psychiatrist for the defendant who delayed answering any questions of the prosecution until he got a nod from the defense attorney. Really hurt his testimony, especially when he claimed he couldn't read his own handwriting.

 

[D Train]

I served on a grand jury. That was one week a month for three months. We would hear evidence from cases and decide if there was enough evidence to send the case to trial. We could also adjust the charges.
Honestly, it was pretty interesting. We heard evidence for probably 300 cases. It sucked for jurors who were hourly employees though.

 

[arrmike]

BTW: Trade Secret - if you ever get picked for a jury, it's because the attorneys on both sides think you can be easily swayed to their position and favor their side. That's why most jurors (civil ones, at least) are either non-college grads working blue-collar jobs, housewives, and/or retired old farts - I almost never see a professional, educated person (especially if he's a white guy) get picked from a panel to sit on a jury.

Not always true. First jury I was on was pretty much all white professionals. It was for a child rapist. The prosecution didn't want to f around.

Next jury I was on was how you describe. A bunch of ignorant deadbeats. I was very proud to be one of the 2 for conviction when we finally hung.

I'm a white male professor and department chair and the second time I was the last one from my pool to be called, so maybe that explains why I got a seat.

What bothered me the most on the second key was that most of the people on it could not decide, when presented with 2 incompatible stories, which one was true.

It's not even that they believed the defendant, they just didn't think it was possible to decide which side was true and which was a lie.